get_account_overview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It does not disclose read-only nature, response structure, pagination, or any side effects. The phrase 'overview' hints at a high-level view but adds little beyond the purpose statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the core function. It is concise and free of redundancy, achieving high clarity with minimal words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and the description says nothing about return format, data shape, or how this differs from get_portfolio_snapshot. Given the lack of annotations and the presence of sibling tools that may overlap, the description is incomplete for safe and accurate tool selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schemas already provide 100% coverage for all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'combined overview' of spot and funding wallet balances, which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools get_spot_account and get_funding_wallet. The verb 'get' and specific resource markers make the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a use case (when both balance types are needed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It lacks direct exclusions or mentions of alternatives, so the agent is left to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.